HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Trinkley <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:32:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
This press release was forwarded to me by an individual who is not on the
list, with a request that I post it. I hope it will be of interest to the
subscribers. I also apologize since this is cross posted to Publhist,
Histarch, and Arch-L.
 
For additional information contact: William A. Scott, Esq., Martin Law Firm,
147 Wapoo Creek Drive, Suite 601, Charleston, SC  29412, 803.762-2121,
Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
 
Charleston, SC -- In the case of Pye v. Charleston County Council and the SC
Department of Archives and History (CCCP #96-CP-10-3434), a judge ruled
November 6, 1996 in favor of the plaintiffs, Russ and Lee Pye, issuing an
injunction that would halt the development of an archaeologically and
historically significant site, owned by Charleston County. The decision is
another victory for the plaintiffs in their on-going battle for governmental
compliance with local, state, and federal environmental and historic
preservation laws.
 
According to a June 1996 published news account the site had been determined
potentially eligible for listing with the National Register of Historic
Places by the County's historical consultant and plans to construct a dirt
mining operation (borrow pit) were terminated. Despite the findings of the
consultant, the SC Department of Archives and History disagreed with the
recommendations. Charleston County officials have since restated their
intended use for the property as a municipal solid waste landfill/ash
mono-fill, and had received US Army Corps authorization to begin road
construction in September 1996.
 
Citing legislative intent to preserve historical and natural resources, while
challenging the constitutional due process rights, the plaintiffs requested
the injunctive relief pending the resolution of the issues raised in this
litigation.
 
XXX

ATOM RSS1 RSS2